Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

PartDirect t1_j3sa0na wrote

What's so special about a single-story drive through Walgreens with a surface parking lot??

Tear it down, build more housing with Walgreens on the ground floor, and underground parking.

35

patlaska t1_j3sjzuw wrote

SR99 is directly underneath this parcel, which means underground parking probably isn't feasible. They laid out a lot of the issues with building density on this parcel in the article.

The actual building may have some historic merit, it was originally a bank and one of the first few drivethrough banks.

The landmark status looks like it only applies to the building, so they could use the surface parking to build something like townhouses. IDK what the parcel actually looks like so that may not be feasible either

27

OldeHickory t1_j3snb70 wrote

A reasonable take from a reasonable person who actually read the article.

15

patlaska t1_j3sr763 wrote

Yeah I'm not really even advocating for either side here (love historic preservation but believe in density/redevelopment) but jesus christ half of these comments didn't even click the article, just drank the koolaid based off of the article name

9

[deleted] t1_j3skaqa wrote

[deleted]

−2

patlaska t1_j3skfub wrote

>"PubliCola has written extensively about the 1950 structure, which was originally a drive-through bank—a novel convenience at a time when American car culture was just ramping up. The building was one of many copies of a 1946 prototype created for Seattle-First National Bank, many of which are still standing in Seattle and across the region"

This is the 2nd paragraph in the linked article. You gotta read my dude

6

OldeHickory t1_j3sn6zp wrote

Check more than one source. Historicaerials.com can help

3

azdood85 t1_j3siwgs wrote

Walgreens is probably a corporate sponsor of our politicians so cant be thinking logically about this one.

0

[deleted] t1_j3sjpsy wrote

[deleted]

0

OldeHickory t1_j3sn2ra wrote

That date is wrong. Approximately half of all build dates are incorrect in tax assessors records. You could have easily proven this wrong with a quick look at historic aerial photos.

It is special from both a historical and architectural perspective.

The amount of misinformation and just lack of reading the article here in pathetic.

1